Referendum: The Only Way Forward

The issue of Same Sex Marriage (hereafter Homosexual Union or HU) refuse to go away. It has now provided a destabilising and distracting influence in our society for far too long.[1] Our country is on the brink and this in so many ways. We have had a revolving door installed in the Prime Minister’s office. We know that Brutus is alive and well in the halls of Parliament and in both major political parties. There is no longer any sense of right or wrong, morality, honour, or integrity amongst most politicians and within most political parties. Economically, we are in trouble. Socially, we are in deeper trouble: ‘ice’ epidemic; murder in our streets; internet bullying; suicide – need I continue. Yet, when you look at the news, we hear no concrete response to these issues. Why, because we are bogged down in the distractions of the day and whilst bogged we witness the continuing disintegration of our society.

Homosexual Union is an unwelcome distraction. It is so for two reasons. First and Biblically, HU and the associated life choices are condemned as being the ultimate living judgement of God. That is to say, God responds to Man’s rebellion by “handing him over”[2] to the very lifestyle, with all its pitfalls, that he has demanded. Secondly, this issue shows how this nation, in excluding God from politics, has become essentially immoral[3] – that is, we no longer abide by God’s law as the ultimate and only moral standard.

The combination of these factors means that we now witness a constant push by a vocal minority for a moral recognition to which they are not entitled. Their plea is made vociferously to politicians who, no longer governing according to morality, are looking to be popular – the new version of morality. These politicians, shifting ground faster than sand in a sand storm, are malleable, pliable, and always apt to change their mind.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the whole issue of HU? Much and everything! Throughout this saga, men like Senator Cory Bernardi have consistently said that the “Parliament should decide”. Senator Bernardi has also stated, and rightly so, that ‘Parliament has decided’. The problem is that the Parliament has taken no action to end the issue or to stop the debate. Thus, Parliament is failing the people of this country by its gross negligence.

What do I mean by this? Well, in simple terms, we wonder when Parliament will take a stand and stop this nonsense. In the last few years we have seen attempt after attempt to have HU legalised in this nation. Bills have been defeated, left in limbo, introduced under false pretences and so on. Yet, we have not had one politician suggest that we need to put a moratorium on this issue or put a sunset clause on it. This lack of action by our politicians then means that the door is left open and the Parliamentary circus continues. It also means that those demanding the recognition of homosexual union will keep badgering Parliament, according to the Biblical parable of the Persistent Widow,[4] until they cave; and cave they will – eventually!

Yes, Parliament should decide. Yes, Parliament has decided – and this several times! However, a Parliament that strives to be immoral is a Parliament that is like the storm tossed ship that has lost both sail and rudder—it cannot help but founder! It will, it must, eventually slide beneath the waves of sin and immorality. Why? Precisely because this Parliament has rejected God, the only and absolute source of all morality, it will begin, in the words of Isaiah, to call evil good and good evil.[5] This process has begun. This process is gathering pace.

Some may doubt the veracity of these statements, but please mull over these historical facts that show this hurried and hastening descent into the abyss.

Writing in the Herald Sun, former Treasurer, Peter Costello, made these comments:

Yet back in 2004, when the Coalition government amended the Marriage Act to make it clear that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman, Labor’s shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, made it clear that Labor, as a party, supported that: “The Bill is something we do not have an objection to,” she told the House of Representatives. The Bill passed without a vote being called. Only three people spoke in the debate. The House of Representatives settled the issue of gay marriage in 25 minutes.[6]

Fast forward eight years to 2012. The agitators have now made certain that the non-issue has become a bothersome issue. The agitators show that the Parliament has changed from a Parliament that saw “no objection” to God’s moral order in and for marriage to a Parliament that was discontent with God’s moral order. The culmination of these points saw a Bill proposing the legalisation of HU introduced to Parliament and a vote was held on 19 September of that year. The Bill was soundly defeated, 42 for and 98 against.

Was the issue settled? Had the slippery slope been abandoned? No. This vote simply buoyed the agitators and gave them reason to continue. This vote simply added suds to the slope so that the momentum was gained. Doubts? Please read on: “Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who backed the legislation, says the vote shows there has been significant progress towards legalising gay marriage. Just a few years ago there wouldn’t have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national Parliament for a marriage equality bill.” However, the salient point came in these words: “All the figures show that there is majority community support on this issue… and I think at some future time, Parliament will catch up with the community opinion.”[7]

Now I do not give any credence to this “majority of the community” type nonsense that is so often quoted, but never statistically verified. I am far more interested in Mr Albanese’s comment that he hopes, “Parliament will catch up in the future.”

With these words, the seeds are sown. The agitators, once outside of Parliament are now within Parliament. This is highlighted by the fact that at the time of this vote there were three other Bills, aimed at producing the same result, waiting in the wings. Parliament was in for a fight. They were not expecting this fight and morally, few if any, were equipped for the fight.

Move forward but a few years. Brutus Turnbull slays the elected ruler, Tony Abbott – a criminal, apparently, for insisting on morality that was akin to God’s morality in regard to marriage! The agitators now take control of the Liberal Party. Whilst not declaring an official position in favour of HU, the Liberals are gesturing in that direction. This is no doubt a concerted effort to beat Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and his deputy, Tanya Plibersek, to the punch with their promise to introduce a Bill supporting HU within 100 days of being elected.

Now for the hypocrisy! Let me give you some names, eight in all. Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Julie Bishop, Warren Entsch, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull. Of these eight, six (75%) voted against HU and two (25%) voted for HU in the 2004 vote. Currently, three (37.5%) hold to the same position as they did in the 2004 vote, meaning that five (62.5%) have abandoned their position or have rebelled against their Party’s position.[8] Can you name the three?

The three are Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, and Tony Abbott. Interesting, is it not? Tony Abbott is the only member of the supposedly conservative Party who has remained steadfast! Anyway, I digress. Of the remaining five, two have left politics, but that does not change the point to be made—our Parliament is filled with fickle, immoral politicians whose stand on moral issues for absolute moral reasons is almost non-existent. Therefore, these people will succumb to the pressures of the day. The statistical change, highlighted in the eight parliamentarians named above, show that the process is well under way.

Our politicians are no longer moral watchmen and paragons of virtue, standing upon the parapets of our nation with a keen eye, determined to protect those within its walls and modelling for its citizens an upright life. No, our modern politicians are more like corrupt judges. They are open to bribery, flattery, and all kinds of ills.[9] Sure, they do not use these terms, but it all amounts to the same thing. The term “faceless men” came into usage in recent years, but the fact is that the faceless men have been around for decades. Conversations in dark corners, whispers, promises, winks and nods, have become the order of the day. None, or very few, are actually willing to speak according to conscience and belief.

These unhelpful traits are, of course, all compounded and made far worse by the idiotic madmen and self-appointed moral policemen – you know them as the media – who, without bias (excuse me while I laugh), have insisted on highlighting and commenting upon every perceived blemish or otherwise of the politician in the spotlight. So, who cares about policy! Tony Abbott is no good! Why? He wears budgie smugglers! Oh, the shame of it. Yes, shameful that in a country of obese people we had a Prime Minister who actually likes to exercise and wear the official Aussie cosy. These people would rather that this country was run by an articulate liar than someone of clumsy speech whose intentions were pure.

The point is that all of these things coalesce to give us a Government that is concerned with transient opinion polls, which rarely mean anything, rather than governing solidly and morally for the long term welfare of the nation. The politicians no longer guide and protect the nation; they simply capitulate to whim and fancy in order to stay in power. As a real life example, I live in the electorate of Indi. My Federal Member has made HU her signature issue. In a discussion with her on this subject, she stated to me that it is the Government’s responsibility to keep pace with society. In other words, the Government has become like an over indulgent parent that never says “no” to a child or disciplines a child. Rather, the Government is now simply a facilitator of the desires of the people.

With this being the case, we the people, by God’s grace and in His power, need to take direct and positive action.

This then brings me to a discussion of the need for a referendum. A few years ago, we wrote two articles[10] on the issue of a referendum in regard to HU. At this point our fundamental belief has not changed. What has changed is the fact that I am now calling for Christians to demand a referendum on this issue. I am also calling for Christians, in particular, to cease being afraid of a referendum and to commit this whole issue into the Hands and Providence of Almighty God.

A referendum is necessary for two reasons. First, we have no way other way, as a people, to bring this issue to a head. Secondly, by flexing the muscles of people power we have a unique opportunity to show our politicians just how out of touch they are with the people they govern.

Let us address these two points.

As we have outlined, the simple reality is that our politicians have adopted immorality in their governance. These people are no longer governed in conscience or action by the moral Absolute or the concept of right and wrong. Today, righteousness has been jettisoned in favour of expedience. Consequently, we have witnessed the Parliament move from a unanimous view on Marriage, as between one man and one woman, in 2004; to voting on this issue in 2012; to promises being made to make HU a reality in 2015 – and all this in the space of a decade.

Fickle is a good description, but I do wonder whether that term is either strong enough or broad enough. Anyway, the simple reality is that the immoral politicians will eventually cave and give in to the vociferous minority and we will have HU foist upon us. I say foist deliberately. We live in a so-called democracy. The governments of the land are meant to listen to the people, to the majority of the people. Yet, on this issue, the politicians are simply stopping their ears to the majority voice. The media is blocking publication of the Biblical view. Dissenting voices are being banned from the public square. Thus, we must demand a referendum and only a referendum.

Why not a Plebiscite? The answer has to do with the non-binding nature of a plebiscite. If we have a plebiscite on this issue, it amounts to nothing more than an incredibly expensive opinion poll. Let’s ask some questions? What number is needed in a plebiscite in order to convince the government that they are wrong and that HU should not be legalised? Is this number 51% or is it 91%? What number is needed to ensure that we do not see any more Bills on this issue introduced to Parliament in the next decade? Speaking of time, how long would this plebiscite hold? Are we even guaranteed that a 91% vote against HU would stop Parliament from legalising HU? Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, did not place a caveat on his 100 day promise? So what effect would the plebiscite have on his promise?[11] We can also highlight the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, voting in plebiscites is not compulsory. This forces to ask the serious question, “What part would our nation’s apathy play in such a vote?”

Simplifying this issue, we really have three options before us. One, we take Senator Bernardi’s position and let Parliament decide. This will simply mean further wrangling until our Parliament is radically changed morally or it capitulates to the demands of the homosexual lobby. Two, we undertake a plebiscite with absolutely no guarantees that the government will pay the slightest attention to the outcome. They may. They might. However, ‘In what form?’ and ‘For how long?’ remain the two important questions. Third, we move to a referendum and vote as a people.

Alright, let’s explore the referendum a little further. There are some pitfalls in this strategy, well, one really, and that is the question put to the people. As with all votes, the question and its framing become the central issue. This is the critical issue and it is the great unknown. However, one would hope that given the topic to be decided that there would not be any game playing. Outside of this, there are no real drawbacks to this option. It needs to be remembered that the Constitution gives the Parliament the right to decide on marriage. This understanding was reinforced by the High Court in its recent ruling. Therefore, why should we not take this opportunity to have the Biblical understanding of marriage also enshrined into the Constitution – safeguarding it from the hands of the fickle parliamentarians?

The second issue is that of flexing our muscles as a people. I will guarantee that you can meet a stranger in the street and within five minutes have them expressing their dissatisfaction with Government. People are inherently dissatisfied in our day and this is no less the case with those in power. They see no real options and no real answers in any Party. We have had five Prime Ministers in the same amount of years. What has this gained us? One thing — an increasingly long list of living ex-Prime Ministers to be supported by the public pursethat is code for your tax dollars! For what? To be made a laughingstock. To see our nation fall into the abyss. To see even more despair fall upon the people.

Our politicians regularly ignore us. At election time they clamour for our vote, they make grand promises, they lull us with their hackneyed rhetoric and worn out tracks on “health and education”, yet nothing changes, positively that is! Our nation drifts and that which is adrift is in constant danger because it is subject to the power of external forces.

So, before us we have an opportunity. What happens to Mr Turnbull and Mr Shorten when a referendum says that the majority of Australians, let me say, the vast majority of Australians, support the Biblical idea of marriage. Well, in political terms, they are made to eat the pie of humility. What are the possibilities? Think here of proving the politicians so wrong. The question would then become, if you were so wrong on this issue, what else are you wrong about? Then we might think of how such an opportunity might awaken the Australian people from their apathy. If they realise that they can have a significant impact upon politicians, it may encourage them to hold their elected representatives more accountable. What about morality? A stunning victory for God and His morality may indeed force this nation to realise that “sin is a disgrace” and that we need to return to being moral people.

As I see it, to hold to the status quo of ‘letting Parliament decide’ in regard to this issue is to guarantee that HU will become a legal reality in this nation. This simple fact is that the Governments of this nation have become entangled and bound by their own rebellion and the instatement of ungodly and immoral laws – like equality, religious vilification – which now hold them to a path and agenda of social destruction as we provoke God’s wrath more and more.

In this climate, what then do we have to be afraid of as Christians? Psalm 27:1-3 states: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, my adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.  Though a host encamp against me, My heart will not fear; Though war arise against me, In spite of this I shall be confident.” Shall we not trust the Lord today, with this battle, as the Kings of old did? Can we not say with Jehoshaphat, “O our God, wilt Thou not judge them? For we are powerless before this great multitude who are coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are on Thee.”[12]

We must, as God’s people, look to the Lord our God for His aid in winning this battle. We must begin by believing that God is the Sovereign King of the universe. We must begin by truly believing that God, anointed Jesus Christ, His Son, to wear the mantle of Kingship in order that He would subdue[13] all God’s enemies. We should be confident. We should be glad. We should engage in this battle looking for the triumph of God in Christ Jesus.

Remember, it is the demons and all their allies that tremble at the name of Jesus (James 2:19). This is the reason that we have had two Prime Ministers suggest a referendum and within a few days the idea has been debunked, forgotten, or transformed into a plebiscite. These people know that they will not win this referendum. These politicians fear that by letting the people vote they will be shown to be wrong and then they must do what the people say on this matter. In short, our politicians, and others in our society, fear the people of God and they fear the real outcome of the democratic process they profess to uphold! Let us show them that they are right to fear the Army of the Lord, for it is the Lord, the Almighty, who goes before us to fight for His name and His people.[14]

Paul’s counsel to Timothy is valid: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.”[15]


[1] Proverbs 4:25-27 – Let your eyes look directly ahead, and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet, and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil. Psalm 119:15 – I will meditate on Thy precepts, and regard Thy ways.

[2] Romans 1:18-32; especially the thribble “God gave them over” of verses 24, 26, and 28.

[3] The term “immoral” is correctly used here. Some would expect, possibly, that we speak of amorality; however, there is simply no such creature. We either have obedience to God’s standard – morality – or a departure from that morality – this is not amorality, it is simply immorality.

[4] I find it very sad that those opposed to Jesus Christ use this model in order to wage war against God and His people – persistent, long term badgering, yet the people of God do not grasp the teaching of the parable – pray day and night and God the father will bring about justice speedily for His children!

[5] Isaiah 5:20-23.

[6] Peter Costello, Bipartisan, but only when it suits, Herald Sun, Tuesday, August 18, 2015. p. 26. Italics added.


[8] A footnote is needed in regard to Julie Bishop. She has not publicly declared her support for HU, but had dropped hints that reforms are needed. Her political views are more to the liberal side of liberal politics. One may gain some insight from comments made around a propose UN resolution on the family. These comments inferred that there are a diverse range of families and that the family should not be treated solely as a unit. Here, then, seems to be the basic ideas of non-heterosexual unions equating with heterosexual families and of individualism. To what extent these ideas reflect hers, we cannot be sure. However, the Minister’s reluctance to give her own view on this matter means that she is looking toward her political future. Her actions in regard to Tony Abbott, suggest the same. Thus, methinks she cannot be trusted. It seems to me that her priority is her own political future and that she will do whatever is necessary to preserve that career. The judgemental comment is now to follow, so if you do not want to read it, look away! I am also suspicious because, after a failed marriage, Julie Bishop has decided upon a life outside of wedlock, but not of singleness – “Asked if she can see herself marrying again, Bishop laughs. “No, not at my age” she says firmly. “I think he would have to be a very brave person to take it on. The role of a Cabinet Minister is all-consuming. I throw myself into it with my heart and soul, 110 per cent effort” ( Thus, like Julia Gillard, it is hard to see how she will have either a solid view or complete understanding of marriage when she has no interest in being married. In short, if she does not represent and commit to the genuine and Biblical understanding of marriage in her own life, then how will she ever fight for that understanding on behalf of this society? Sadly, what we see in Julie Bishop, as with Julia Gillard, is a fundamental commitment to individualism and personal satisfaction. Self, self-happiness, and self-fulfilment take pride of place; so political career and ambition take centre stage, becoming the priority that does not allow for any other contenders. Thus, in reality, there is little difference between this position and that of the homosexuals demanding HU. It is a difference in degree only, not in kind. For this reason, methinks political ambition will sway Julie Bishop to eventually “come out” as a supporter of HU. (An aside: In 2012 Julia Gillard voted against HU. In 2015, she came out in support of HU. Now, please consider these words: “In a 2013 interview with The Washington Post, she stated: “I think it would be inconceivable for me if I were an American to have turned up at the highest echelon of American politics being an atheist, single and childless” ( Let me focus on the word “single”. This is an interesting word, given that from 2006, through her time as Prime Minister and Deputy leader of the Labor Party she was in a relationship with Tim Mathieson. So here we see the real hypocrisy. I do not want God. I do not want marriage. Yet, I want aspects of God’s marriage. Is it any wonder then that Julia Gillard’s position has wavered? How can she deny others – whatever their sexual preference –the very things she has demanded for herself?)

[9] Proverbs 16:12; 20:26 & 28; 31:4-5.


[11] If you doubt this, please go to this website – – and take note of the fact that there are no rules that govern a plebiscite.

[12] 2 Chronicles 20:12.

[13] 1 Corinthians 23b-25: “Christ’s at His coming … will deliver up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

[14] Joshua 10:42: “And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one time, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.”

[15] 2 Timothy 1: 7-8.

Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

You will know them by their fruits”, so says Jesus.[1] This is a wonderful piece of advice and one which every Christian should learn to put into practice. In essence, Jesus is telling us that if you want to understand what makes a man tick, look at the fruit of his ideas. If someone comes to you selling “sweetness and light”, but behind him there is a trail of stench and darkness, then you would rightly question the intrinsic nature of the salesman’s product. In such a scenario, the terms ‘witchdoctor’ and ‘snake oil’ would readily spring to mind.

As Christians in the year 2015, we have many witchdoctors peddling much snake oil, but it all comes packaged as “sweetness and light” or, more specifically, Religious Freedom and Equality. Yes, the packaging sells the product well. It is bright and shiny. It makes some wonderful claims that just warm the cockles of your heart. It’s calorie free. It can be consumed at any time. It will add volume to your hair and … you get the picture. Yes, it seems laudable and the racketeers, oh, sorry, marketers, do a fine job in pushing their product. However, have you stopped to look at the fruit of their wares? When you look at our culture, are people healthy, thin, and sporting voluminous bouffants or are they ailing, squidgy around the middle, and balding?

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

This challenge is necessary precisely because the common place mantra in the Church today is “Do not judge; do not judge!” Consequently, when we as Christians are confronted with fruit that is rancid or which looks highly questionable, we tend to be duped or coerced into believing the packaging and its claims. Thus, we quote the mantra, breathe deeply, and take a bite, rather than dispose of the rotten fruit — pledging never to buy from that retailer ever again!

Two such pieces of ugly fruit, being mass marketed as we speak, are Religious Freedom and Equality. Yet, both are rotten to the core. They are so because they are anti-God and as such contravene explicit commands that God has given. As such, one would think that the average Christian would give these products wide birth. However, it still seems that Christians are willing to believe the promises of the racketeers, rather than the Word of God.

Reformation Ministries, Salt Shakers, and other Christian organisations, expend much energy on warning people, Christians in particular, about the dangers of Humanism and electing governments whose explicit agendas run contrary to God’s Word. Today, we place upon your table the fruit of Humanism’s hollow promises, garnished with a real life example of Humanism’s hypocrisy.

We are all aware of the terms Religious Freedom and Equality. Both are pushed by the Humanists. Both are said to mean that any and every man will be free to believe what he will and act in accordance with his own conscience. This sounds good to many, but it is in fact the first false step. Man was created in God’s image and for His glory.[2]  As such, Man’s beliefs and conscience are inextricably tied to the Law and revelation of God as opened to us in the Bible.[3] In short, Man is not autonomous, he is Theonomic. Man is not “I” centred (anthropocentric), but “God” centred (Theocentric).

Applying this Biblical truth means that Man is neither free to follow any religion he likes or invents nor able to demand equality for every practice. By this we mean that Man must worship God, through Jesus Christ, as God has specified in Scripture and that Man’s acceptable behaviour is that, and only that, which God in His Word countenances.[4] This means that bowing to a golden image is as wrong today as it was in Daniel’s time. It means that the wicked are not equal with the righteous or the murderer with the innocent.

Thus, Religious Freedom and Equality are usurpations of God’s rule and authority and they are a manifestation of Man’s desire to ascend to the throne of God.

That this is so can be seen in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, which comes to us from the USA.[5] This 70 year old, a Christian florist, has fallen foul of the State authorities for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual union – what is termed as ‘gay marriage’. In looking at this case, we see that the Humanist veil has completely fallen off, displaying their bigotry, bias, and hostility to Christ and His own.

The cut down version of the story is that a long time customer of Mrs. Stutzman took advantage of perverse marriage laws[6] and decided to unite with his homosexual partner. Mrs. Stutzman was in turn asked to provide flowers for the event. After careful consideration, she politely declined the invitation. From this seemingly amicable declining of an invitation, the story, carried by the great evil of social media, began to circulate. At this point, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, having viewed the social media, stepped in and sued Mrs. Stutzman. That’s right. The Attorney General, without a complaint from the man involved launched a suit against Mrs. Stutzman. Bob Ferguson’s rationale is this: “My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I[7] will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”[8]

Here, we enter upon the conundrum. We subtitled this article, The Antipodes of Humanism, and we did so for this reason – Humanism cannot reconcile its two great mantras!

When Christians defend the faith, they can be criticised for being biased – which we are happily; biased toward God and His Word – and people can use that bias to disbelieve the message.[9] However, the above story, giving voice to the Humanist agenda, shows that the fruit of Humanist philosophy is rancid, unpalatable, and poisonous. It does so precisely because it proves that the two great Humanist mantras of Religious Freedom and Equality are completely incompatible. It proves that Humanism cannot guarantee everybody’s freedom. At some point, a person’s ideology (religion) is going to clash with another’s ideology as the fruits of that ideology (actions) are put on display.

Let’s make it simple. Your religion will dictate your practice. Your religion specifies your morals; your morals are worked out through your fingertips, so to speak. Now the fallacy of Humanism, and its outright hypocrisy, is that it tries to pretend that all actions and, therefore, all religions are equal. However, this simply cannot be true and the above story proves it to be so. A Christian operating on her religious convictions refuses a service to another person based on the fact that the other person’s religion and practice conflicts with her own. At this point, Humanism should be delighted. Both parties have expressed their conviction and have practiced their religion accordingly. Yet what we see is that Humanism is decidedly unhappy. Mr. Ferguson, wielding the power of the State, is incensed and feels that action is warranted.

Naturally, he must favour the Christian. After all, she holds to tenets that have been cherished and believed for thousands of years. She believes as the founders of America believed – in a Law giving God who proscribed homosexuality as an abomination. Hers is the established religion of centuries. The judges of America sit beneath the Ten Commandments. Surely, hers is the right! No. Not so.

You see, the new god dictates who is right and who is wrong. The worshippers of this new god know that Equality is a fallacy precisely because not all religions agree on every tenet and disagreement must mean a difference in practice.[10] Yet, they continue with their mantra hoping to blind as many people as possible.

The key lesson here is that Humanism is itself a religion and one that is, at present, far more destructive than the threat posed by Islam. Please do not be fooled by Humanism’s rhetoric of either Freedom or Equality; neither be fooled by Humanism’s claim to be neutral. All are lies. When a stalemate occurs, as in the above story, the servants of the new god become the umpires and they will always side with that which promotes their religion and their god.

This said, there are other disturbing elements to this story. For example, Mrs. Stutzman is not only being sued as a business, but also as a person. She has now also had lawsuits brought against her by the ACLU and the person involved. Then there are the homosexual activists who are now sending more requests to Mrs. Stutzman for flowers at their union ceremonies, knowing she will refuse and thereby increase fines and so on.

These elements are wrong and true justice is mocked. For example, how many times can a person be sued for one action? If the Attorney General proceeds first, in the name of the State, on what basis are these other suits presented. In essence, any person in America aggrieved at this lady’s action could sue her![11] Then we have to ask as to the rights of a business owner to refuse service to a person. How is refusing service to a homosexual any different to refusing service to a person with an inappropriate dress code or who is drunk?[12] Both these later examples are acceptable, with one being required by law. Hence, we can only conclude that discrimination is acceptable, it is simply a matter of whom you choose to discriminate against and on what basis.

This then leads us to a clarion statement: Christian, the persecuted Church no longer exists in Communist, Islamic, and Third World countries. It exists right here, in the so-called Christian West! America calls itself a Christian nation, yet She actively persecutes true Christians. Do not be fooled, the same is happening here in Australia. It may be less noticeable, but it is here. It is not different in nature, only in degree.

Hence, we, as God’s people, must take action whilst we are still able. Dear friends, this is why we ask you to join us in our stand against these false standards. This call is issued because, sadly, the Christian populace has largely embraced these false ideas of Freedom and Equality, either naively thinking that they were good or they have been coerced by law and threats of litigation.

In essence, Freedom of Religion and Equality are the Secular Humanist’s values enshrined in law and the means by which they will discriminate against all those who hold to a different religion. In the end, the question is not, “Will there be discrimination in our society?” but “Who is to be discriminated against and by what standard?”

We ask, therefore, that you might join in rejecting all forms of the Humanist agenda and thereby become an integral part of the Church Militant instead of the Church compliant.

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

[3] Question and answer 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism highlight this: “What do the scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Tim. 3:16)”

[4] The perfect example of this pattern is to be seen in the Ten Commandments. The first four deal with God and His worship, the following six with how man should relate to man. God therefore loves the one who worships correctly and hates the one who presents false worship. God deplores the thief and the adulterer, but has regard for the one who honours his parents. In God’s eyes, not all religions are valid or all actions acceptable. God, as the perfect Sovereign, determines these things. Not Man!

[5] We are citing this case because the USA is further advanced in capitulating to the homosexual agenda and it is hoped that the ramifications seen there might awaken us to action before we begin to see and experience the same here.

[6] This is of course an imposition of the Humanist god. The One living and true God says that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that for life. God does not recognise homosexual unions as legitimate. They are viewed as rebellion.

[7] It is an interesting use of the personal pronoun at this point.

[8] If all discrimination is wrong, then open the jails. In fact, one must destroy all law. Any law, any compulsion, is intrinsically an act of discrimination or, at the very least, holds the potential to be discriminatory. Similarly, if Mr. Ferguson wants to remove “discrimination the basis of sexual orientation” and genuinely wants to be fair to all, why then does he only stand up for that which is Biblically and historically aberrant behaviour?

[9] Of course, the Humanists admit no such bias. They would have you believe that they were born in a vacuum and remain untouched by the world of ideas around them.

[10] A man whose religion sates that he is bound to obey a God who has revealed His will is going to have a very different set of practices to the man that sets himself up as god and believes that he rightly determines his own actions.

[11] It must be said that in Biblical justice the person wronged must be the complainant, unless that person is incapable of doing so. The Bible knows nothing of the State benefitting from cases of justice; the beneficiary must be the person wronged.

[12] We could even turn the question around and ask, “At what point will a customer be compelled to shop in a particular store against their will?” If the owner of a business is compelled to deal with everyone, when will he be able to compel everyone?